|
|
|
|
|
by ilyagr
99 days ago
|
|
https://github.com/typst/typst is an interesting competitor to ConTeXt. It's not even TeX, but somehow I tried (and liked) it before I tried CoTeXt. TeX syntax is not something I ever enjoyed in LaTeX. How much more compatible with LaTeX is ConTeXt than typst? For example, is there tikz for ConTeXt? |
|
ConTeXt is still TeX, but its syntax is very different from LaTeX's. Nearly every command takes an optional set of key–value arguments, and everything is integrated into the core, so the syntax is much more regular. Example:
Output: https://www.maxchernoff.ca/files/context-example-1.webp https://www.maxchernoff.ca/files/context-example-2.webp> How much more compatible with LaTeX is ConTeXt than typst?
Most engine primitives (\hbox, \def, \relax, etc.) and Plain TeX macros (\quad, \nobreak, \bigskip) work in both LaTeX and ConTeXt, and the math syntax is almost identical between LaTeX and ConTeXt too. Otherwise, they don't share very much in common.
> For example, is there tikz for ConTeXt?
Sure, it's called TikZ :) Meaning that TikZ has native and full support for ConTeXt, so
is all that you need to use it. Metafun [0] is ConTeXt's built-in alternative to TikZ, but you can use both in the same document if you want.[0]: https://www.pragma-ade.com/general/manuals/metafun-p.pdf